Affair alone wouldn’t be reason to impeach

By ALAN JOHNSON

The impeachment case against Attorney General Marc Dann begins with this premise: It’s not about the affair.

From Gov. Ted Strickland on down, Democrats supporting the call for Dann to resign very quickly made it clear that impeachment, if it becomes necessary, will be about the totality of improprieties in Dann’s 16-month tenure, such as misfeasance or malfeasance in office.

“There are a range of considerations that go well beyond, and in my judgment, are much, much more serious, than any personal relationship that may have occurred between the attorney general and someone else,” Strickland said.

The state Democratic chairman, Rep. Chris Redfern of Catawba Island, said the impeachment will be more about Dann’s statements under oath.

“When you’re asked under oath about those facts and you mislead or you equivocate dozens of times, then there are grounds for removal ... In the totality of it, there are so many other things other than the affair.”

Potential grounds for impeachment:

UA hostile work environment.

The case against Dann will be built, in part, on his contribution to or tolerance of a “hostile work environment,” the magic words in sexual-harassment litigation.

“He is directly responsible for creating the hostile work environment,” said Rex Elliott, the Columbus attorney representing Cindy Stankoski and Vanessa Stout, the two attorney general employees whose sexual harassment complaints set the investigation in motion.

“By his behavior, he sent a message to his office that that was perfectly acceptable … His conduct goes far beyond a morality issue.”

UPerjury under oath.

It is doubtful that Dann perjured himself by revising his testimony about whether Jessica Utovich, his former scheduler, stayed overnight at his Dublin-area condo. He was allowed to review his transcript and add to it (as were all others questioned).

However, it is more likely that he was not completely truthful when he claimed, under oath, that he did not know Stankoski when she came to his apartment Sept. 10, that he did not offer Stout a job, and that Stout didn’t tell him about her past criminal problems when he first met her.

Those contentions are flatly contradicted by statements Stankoski and Stout made under oath.

Stankowski said Dann talked to her on the phone before she went with Gutierrez to the condo that night in September. “He asked me, ‘How is the office treating you?’ He asked if I was having fun and invited me to come over for pizza and drinks,” Stankoski said.

There are discrepancies in Dann’s testimony about Gutierrez, his friend of 20 years, condo roommate and neighbor in Liberty. Dann said he didn’t know Gutierrez drove a state car, but acknowledged that he frequently saw one in Gutierrez’s driveway in Youngstown. Dann said he didn’t know about Gutierrez’s vehicles being equipped with police lights and sirens.

A staff member testified that he was told “on several occasions” that it was because Gutierrez transported Dann in his vehicle.